There is a bizarre intellectual dance taking place around the topic of Barack Obama’s birthplace.

The world has been artificially divided into “Birthers” and “anti-Birthers” when in fact I suspect a large percentage or even majority of the population is neither and simply wants all the evidence released so that we can move beyond the issue. For most people, who have had to show their own birth certificates at various points in their lives, the notion that a presidential candidate should release his or her birth certificate to prove qualification for office reflects neither pro- nor anti-Obama sentiment, but a “what’s the big deal?” attitude.

It also seems that the supposed intellectual poles have been reversed.

People who supposedly are irrational and driven by hatred demand to see the evidence. People who supposedly are rational and driven by dispassionate intellect demand that the evidence not be seen.

Isn’t this the exact opposite of what should take place? Or have the labels been misapplied?

We can push and probe as to George W. Bush’s military record even though most of the claims made clearly were crank and politically motivated (and based on forged documents). We can lament that 35% of Democrats as of May 2007 still believed George W. Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance, or that Truthers still claim 9/11 was an inside government job, even though we have had commissions and investigations which prove otherwise.

We can deal with accusations of John McCain’s alleged misconduct during imprisonment even though such suggestions were beyond the pale, and also questions as to whether McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone disqualified him from the highest office in the land:

The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States….

But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the “natural born” issue in detail, said the question is “not so simple.” While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

“The Constitution is ambiguous,” Duggin said. “The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution.”

And when we confront crank and politically motivated theories, we do so with the best evidence we have available. And if we don’t have all the evidence, we go out and get it.

We regularly rebut and rebuke crank theories with evidence, and by pointing out the lack of evidence to support the theory. We don’t do what so many pundits are doing, and saying thing such as “oh, well even if we release the evidence, they won’t believe it.”

Yes, it’s true that die-hard conspiracy theorists never will be convinced, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try to convince the large segment of the population which will be convinced.

Why isn’t everyone who believes the “Birthers” to be driven by hatred and racism, and motivated by politics, doing what Obama’s family friend and the new Democratic Governor of Hawaii wants to do, rebut and rebuke with the best evidence?

I think a large part of this is the fear of being labeled a “Birther,” which is the functional equivalent of being called a “racist” by the mainstream media and by organizations such as Media Matters, Think Progress and their progeny. As I have pointed out before, you don’t need to doubt Obama’s birthplace or eligibility to be labeled a “Birther”; just ask Scott Brown.

We have reached the point that merely expressing normal political and legal inquisitiveness will result in a charge of Birtherism or racism because it now involves Barack Obama, even though similar questions as to John McCain’s eligibility for office were raised in the 2008 election cycle.

I repeat, whiter-than-white John McCain had his eligibility questioned because of his birthplace, so how is it necessarily racist that the same thing takes place as to Barack Obama? The racist charge is just a way of shutting down the conversation, a convenient excuse for epistemic closure.

As I’ve posted before, I think the circumstantial evidence supports the view that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no credible evidence otherwise. But to reach this conclusion, the one thing neither I nor anyone else can honestly say is that all the evidence has been reviewed.

And personally, I’d love for the records to be released and show that Obama was born in Hawaii, so as to put this politically losing issue behind us. I’d much rather focus politically on Obama’s destruction of the health care system and bankrupting of the country, than be drawn into the birthplace dance.

But I also have pointed out that Obama’s strategy of concealing the records and dismissing the “Birthers” as cranks is not working in the longer term. While the charge of Birtherism can be used by Democrats to shape the political landscape, polling shows that there is a substantial segment of the population which doubts Obama’s legitimacy.

Instead of evidence and inquiry, we have this bizarre intellectual dance, driven by fear of being labeled a Birther or racist, in which otherwise curious reporters, bloggers and pundits try to out-do each other in proclaiming that they do not want to know what the best evidence shows. In order to prove that one is not a “Birther,” is seems that pledging allegiance to the “anti-Birther” movement is required.

Thus, it is not surprising that even people — like me — who believe Obama was born in Hawaii are afraid to touch this subject. Trust me, every time I do a post on this topic I am extremely careful because I know there are people out there just waiting to twist my words and take things out of context.

There are enormous risks for anyone intellectually honest enough to wonder why merely asking questions or seeking the truth constitutes a punishable offense.

How is it that have we reached the point that the most vociferous opponents of Obama want the same evidence that Obama’s most vociferous defender, the Governor of Hawaii, wants?

And how is it that these opposites who are attracted to the same thing cannot seem to get what they want?

Update: Trending, Chris Matthews, David Corn and Clarence Page all say put the issue to rest and release the original birth certificate (h/t HotAir):

Comments

You hit a high note here, professor. I became embroiled in this the last few days and have followed this since August '08. What a succinct statement of the issues! Why the difference between the two candidates? Why has this gone on so long and why is the tardy act of the governor of Hawaii hailed so much? You have clearly stated the issue and your position is sound and reasonable, but the wingnuts will not heed.

We don't need to see a physical birth certificate. In this new "flat earth" paradigm, all we need is a consensus among a few strong-willed partisans to establish our "facts". Logic and common sense are now intellectual inefficiencies that only bog the discussion down in contentious debate by people motivated only by hate.

Welcome to the new Dark Ages. Can a modern day Torquemada converso be all that far away? Maybe Governator Arnold?

I believe the answer lies deeper, under the surface. IMHO within the "anti-birther" community are at least two significant camps.

The first group wants a "Barack Obama" type* in the office at any cost, and doesn't care how it happened, so they wish by any means possible to prevent the issue from being further examined.

The second segment, and these folk might be more numerous than the first, take ecstatic delight in contravening the US Constitution in any way possible. They are hoping against hope the US electorate may have been duped into electing someone not technically qualified. To them it is the best possible revenge against a nation they detest, and they want the situation to last as long as possible before the "bubble" is burst. At some point this group wants the "embarrassment" to become public knowledge.

* By "type" I don't mean "black". I mean a modern, progressive, socialist, metro sexual, politically connected Ivy Leaguer. That the candidate may also be a "person of color" is, to them, icing on the cake.

BTW, it's not only Obama's birth records that have been placed behind a wall of expensive lawyers, his college records are also sealed. Although I happen to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I'm not sure he satisfies the constitutional requirements to be a "natural born citizen". But the very act of classifying these records at such great expense and effort is too curious to be easily dismissed. If their is something critically important being hidden in these records, it's and indictment of the entire system, not just Obama and the Democratic Party, but to the GOP that never challenged this issue long before 2008. We've known since at least 2000 that Obama was being groomed as a presidential candidate and surely this could have been addressed long ago but wasn't. What gives?

While it is possible that he was born in Hawaii – if so, why spend a gazillion dollars fighting? There's that question. The Birth Certificate along would be a non-issue even so. But it's combined with other missing information. College writings, and records and grades – things that, like the Birth Certificate, there is no earthly reason to hide. Honestly, he should be proud of his college records, right? They'll be in the Presidential library someday, right?

I don't understand how he gets away with this. No one else would. McCain certainly wouldn't have, and the media went digging through Sarah Palin' garbage looking for every scrap of info. It must be some sort of reverse racism that they are afraid to do the same with this guy.

Call me a birther if you like, I think he should man-up and quit hiding his past. But I figure it will all come out when he pisses Soros and the left off.

All it takes is one SoS to question his eligibility in 2012 to get a ruling from the Supremes. My reading of the Constitution and subsequent amendments renders Obama ineligible as his father was not a citizen, so where he was born is immaterial.

I've often wondered all that you said, and voiced it throughout the campaign in 2008. I believe it is correct to ask, "What do you have to hide, and why?" What is in these records that they need to be sealed? One of his first acts after being sworn into office was to write an EO to seal ALL his personal records. For such an historical president?! What can possibly be in these records worth so much secrecy? And, the penultimate question: why spend so much money on legal fees keeping this information secret?

I am not a "birther" (read tin-foil-hat nut case) because I question anyone who goes to such great lengths to keep his/her past secret.

You hit it right on the head, as always, Professor: "the supposed intellectual poles have been reversed."

Just go to 'citizen wells' blog. Just had a LTC Lakin courtmarshalled for refusing to deploy because he does not beleive that Barry O was born in Hawaii. Does not matter where he was born. His father was a British subject. He was adopted, and there is no record of him changeing his citezenship later. Traveled on an foreign passport.ETC…

The real issue is that this is the tip of the iceberg concerning key data the American people have not seen (but want to see and are afraid even asking makes them 'racist'),

I've never seen an editor of a law review who did not publish. I've never seen college transcripts and articles and papers secreted away, the first lady's are available, as are mine.

And when it comes to birth certificates, I have a copy of mine, a worn out yellowed copy (in NYC they are also 'official' records but my mother got one nonetheless), so why doesn't the President have a copy of his?

Once we see the thing, assuming the 4 years of controversy haven't given Hawaiian officials to make sure it says what it's supposed to say, then curious constitutional scholars can go into the issue of his fathers nationality at the time.

It's a sad time when our most precious secrets are all over wikileaks but nobody knows for sure if our President really has a birth certificate.. .. ..

This will settle everything for an Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution of USA states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…"

Clearly then it follows that only a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME Of The adoption of this Constitution (September 1787), shall be eligible to the Office of President. Given no one alive today was a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, in September 1787 then an Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School will agree no one is eligible to the office of President and the Constitution of USA is void.

You're welcome.

Ema Nymton~@:o?The LEFT – taking shit for being right since long before you were born..

Ema has a point, but it is not the one she wants to make. Inadvertantly, she is making the point made by Professor Duggin that NBC law is not simple. Based on what professor Duggin said, since McCain's status could be challenged, President Obama's status is also subject to debate. If not more debatable. I think he would likely win, but you never know what will happen when you walk into a court room, which is why he stayed out.

> "Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."

but in fact in precedent the courts have ruled that some constitutional provisions can be expended by legislation. for instance, teh peonage system was not considered slavery by the courts. but congress was allowed to outlaw it based on the 13th A. that is they could call something slavery that was not normally considered slavery, like it or hate it.

I believe we're supposed to shut up and believe what we're told by our self-appointed betters. Liberals believe that the nanny state is supposed to do our thinking for us, because we're too stupid to be allowed to think for ourselves.

I think Barry was born in Hawaii and I think he is technically eligible to be president. His real father(Frank Marshall Davis) was an American citizen.As to the hiding of the birth cert., the father is probably listed as Davis or unknown. That and the birth name is not listed as Barack Obama.

There are two possible outcomes from releasing Obama's birth records: either there will be something damaging/embarrassing in them or there will be nothing of any importance in them. It is obvious that there can be a downside for Obama if there is something damaging or embarrassing in the records. However, there is also a downside if there is nothing of any importance in the records. He has fought to keep these records sealed and thereby encouraged a great deal of controversy. If there is nothing there, he has to explain why he fueled this controversy when it could have been easily extinguished. It does not seem that he can win regardless of what is in those records, so he will fight to keep the records from being released.

This issue is not about obama's citizenship but about his Natural Born Citizenship status as required by the Constitution to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Notice the continuing spin by Matthews and the left wing media accusing the "birthers" of not believing obama is a citizen. Obama may be a US Citizen, but his status as a Natural Born Citizen is doubtful as he was born a Brit with dual US citizenship. Born a Brit, Not legit…

OK. I have to out myself. I am the blogger that did the most recent "research" on the obama newspaper birth announcements. I sent a friend to HI to collect, in person, copies from the two libraries there that house the micro films. I collected copies from the Library of Congress. I got fed up with the Bill O Reily's, ect. claiming that they had "researched all that" by glancing at the copy on some blog, and that blog owner hadn't even collected the copy themselves either.How is that research? And how is a newspaper birth announcement "proof". Anyway, I did find that the only time the two papers listed the same announcements in exact descending order, one day apart, was when obama's announcement appeared. I checked, and can document, that this did not occur the same way during the period spanning 7/23/61 ~ 9/08/61. A lot of other strange things turned up in the research also. For example, the micro film box containing the Aug. 1 ~ 15, 1961 Honolulu Star Bulletin film, in the Library of Congress, has the original reference numbers completely scribbled over, then rewritten in a different color ink. It was the only film box that I handled that was altered this way. I took a photo of the box. I tried not to draw conclusions with my "work". I just wanted the material to be available for those interested in researching the subject. I did find more than I bargained for though.http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/

The whole birth certificate issue serves show how arbitrary the enforcement of the law has become and how arbitrary the entire political selection process has become by the MSM. E.g. the MSM tried their best to ignore the adulterous behavior of man whose wife was dying of cancer all because he was of a certain political party. Any other person with an R behind their name would have been mercilously eviscerated like another certain governor whose wife wasn't dying of cancer.

The huge issue here is the failure of any government agency to vet any credible hint of misconduct by a public figure. If it is true as rumored that Obama got college funding by lying about his legal status then he is a felon. A recent incident (a known terrorist) exposed this kind of fraud as common, claiming you are NOT a US citizen to get special financial benefits for going to college.

The birth announcement address listed in the papers do not match the address listed in the Polk county registrar for the address of Obama Sr which would presumably also be the address of his wife Ann Dunham Obama…

Polk Directory of Honolulu for 1961-1962 lists Barack Obama Sr.'s address as 625 11th Ave while at the time Dunham's address is listed as that of her parents, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. This residence was owned by Orland Lefforge, listed on the U of Hi faculty roster in 1961 (political speech) with 3 small children of his own, and who was also an aide to Sen Daniel K. Inouye in the late 60's.

Hawaii's own records confirm that the newspaper announcements are not factual and thus the lame stream media and good professors continue to pass along intellectual dishonest information instead of standing behind the US Constitution & law, not to mention intellectually honest journalistic reporting.

I'll keep checking back to see if & when any sort of intellectual honest writing ever appears before the truth hits the wires. Because one thing history teaches us, the truth always surfaces no matter how much intellectual dishonesty tries to cover it up.

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.

John Adams Rights of the Colonist, 1772

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

What I see are intellectually honest writers & reporters caving to intellectualy dishonest politicians and their media lapdogs because they are afraid of being called a 'birther'. Just goes to show how cheap the cost of relinquishing your freedom comes these days.